notify_human

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and covers key facts: the notification is one-way, does not wait for a response, and nothing is persisted. It does not describe delivery or error behavior, but those are less critical for a simple notification.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and key behavioral constraints. Every clause adds information and there is no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers core semantics (one-way, no wait, no persistence) and the schema covers the target override behavior. It omits how the default target is configured and doesn't address delivery acknowledgement, but for a simple tool with no output schema this is nearly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%: message is described and the nested target object documents channel, targetId, and override semantics. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description uses a specific verb ('send') and resource ('one-way notification to the human'), and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling ask_human by noting it does not wait for a response. The purpose is unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly conveys when to use the tool: when a one-way, non-blocking notification is needed. It stops short of explicitly naming ask_human as the alternative or stating when not to use this tool, so it misses full marks.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.